Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with the design?
While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering. -- John Carvalho CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <dan...@gap600.com> wrote: > Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being aware > of it. > > First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html > by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route > which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case. > > This would seem like a good way forward. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingm...@woobling.org> > wrote: > >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >> >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
